A response to Answers In Genesis: Why would an Evolutionist Become a Doctor

Answers in Genesis decided to try to make it out as if it makes more sense for a creationist being a doctor then being a scientist that accepts evolution. Here is my response to that claim.

"These opinions notwithstanding, many advances in medical science have come from scientists who did not accept evolution. For example, Louis Pasteur’s belief that life could only come from life led to his proof of the law of biogenesis and the debunking of the theory of spontaneous generation. His discoveries were the basis for landmark inventions such as pasteurization and vaccinations for rabies and anthrax."

Louis Pasteur did debunk spontaneous generation, but not abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the origin of life through chemical processes. However spontaneous generation is when animals like mice and fleas pop out of non living matter.1

"Other prominent creationists in the field of medicine include Joseph Lister, who first promoted the principles of antiseptic surgery, and Dr. Raymond Damadian, inventor of the MRI scanner."

That's nice, however it does not give creationism any credibility. In fact,what about Muslim ones? What about Haly Abbas, Zakariya Razi, and Avicenna?2 Just because creationist have helped in medicine, doesn't mean it is correct. If it does, then Islam should be correct.

"Our own Dr. David Menton, who taught anatomy at the Washington University School of Medicine, said this about evolution and medicine:
If evolution were thrown out of consideration, it would have no negative impact (in medicine)—it plays no necessary role in either the teaching or practice of medicine.
This is not to imply it’s not believed by most or that it doesn’t come up. It does come up from time to time, but from the lectures I’ve attended, when it does come up, it’s mentioned in passing as almost a confession of faith. It doesn’t contribute materially to the topic.
The professors can’t spend too much time on evolution, as they have too much real medical knowledge to get across to the students. Spending a lot of time on evolutionary speculations just wastes time. If you remove evolution, there’s nothing in the whole realm of empirical science that you can’t pursue."

Actually it does. Evolution isn't brought up out of faith but it does contribute. Why do you think we need new vaccines? The reason is because bacteria evolve. What about the mutations in bacteria which help it adapt to antibiotics and make it cause new diseases.3 The problem is that when evolution happens you creationist try to change definitions and ignore it.

"Acceptance of evolution does not make someone a better physician. On the contrary, acceptance of evolution raises a very basic question: “Why would an evolutionist become a doctor in the first place?”

People who accept evolution are doctors so they can help.

"According to evolutionary dogma, the first living organism assembled itself spontaneously and then, by means of mutation and natural selection, slowly began to evolve into more complex organisms, ultimately producing modern man. Evolutionary progress at every step could only happen when the newer organisms out-competed the inferior (that is, less evolved) ones for limited resources. The key to evolutionary success is death of inferior organisms."

This is a misunderstanding of what evolution is. There is no more evolved. Evolution works like this. There is species A and species B. Species B is "weaker" and less evolved then A. However their environment changes. Species A can't adapt and dies out. Species B survives. That means B can pass on traits and go through mutations. So evolution is not the inferior dying, but if a species survives. In fact aren't T-rexes stronger then snails. Yet which one survived, the snail.

"Going to medical school and devoting one’s life to helping the weakest among us to survive should be the last thing a consistent evolutionist would want to do. From the evolutionary point of view, man is just another rung on the evolutionary ladder and is evolving to something even “better.” If evolution is a good thing, having produced us en route to a better product in the future, why would an evolutionist want to help the weak to survive? Doesn’t the practice of medicine itself work against the primary driving force of biological progress? If evolution is really the key to progress, then the physician generally interferes when he helps those who are “less fit” survive and reproduce."

This is because humans need to help their species. If we let sick people die, then that may or will damage the species. Humans being able to live will make us stronger. This is why we take care of the sick, helping them survive does not make the species weaker.

"Darwin himself understood this issue:
With savages, the weak in body and mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands who, from a weak constitution, would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilised society propagate their kind.
No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but, excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered in the manner previously indicated more tender and more widely diffused. Nor can we check our sympathy, even without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. . . . We must, therefore, bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind."

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered in the manner previously indicated more tender and more widely diffused.[/color

You quote mined and misunderstood the quote. It explains right there why people care for other people based on evolutionary biology.

"Thus, the evolutionary worldview is not only unnecessary for the practice of medicine, but actually contrary to the humanitarian nature of the medical profession. A biblical worldview explains the origin of disease and death as part of the curse that marred God’s perfect creation after man sinned."

The bible never really talked about disease. In fact doesn't the bible talk about curing leprosy using birds?4It says that in Leviticus 14:4-7. I don't think this is the best way to cure leprosy. In fact why do Christians care about medicine? That MIT is used to help atheist as well,but the bible tells Christians to not help non Christians.[color=#1E90FF]5 So why help a Muslim or a Hindu. The bible tells you to only love other Christians. There are bible verses, that in fact show my point. What about galatians 1:8-9 which states that "Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."6 So why would you help someone who should be accursed, because to Christians atheist, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhist have preached another gospel in your view.

"So, I would challenge Dr. Dini to ask his students who are evolutionists, “Why do you even want to be a doctor?” Aren’t doctors ultimately working at odds with the process evolutionists hold dear?"

Because evolution is about survival of a species, and to help the survival of humans you must end the evolution of certain organisms.

Evolution is important in biology, which connects to medicine. Christians may have contributed but in no way does the bible support it. Creationist should also learn evolution is the foundation of biology because life changes via mutation and that it explains biodiversity.7

RE: A response to Answers In Genesis: Why would an Evolutionist Become a Doctor

(02-03-2014 06:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote: "Our own Dr. David Menton, who taught anatomy at the Washington University School of Medicine, said this about evolution and medicine:
If evolution were thrown out of consideration, it would have no negative impact (in medicine)—it plays no necessary role in either the teaching or practice of medicine.
This is not to imply it’s not believed by most or that it doesn’t come up. It does come up from time to time, but from the lectures I’ve attended, when it does come up, it’s mentioned in passing as almost a confession of faith. It doesn’t contribute materially to the topic.
The professors can’t spend too much time on evolution, as they have too much real medical knowledge to get across to the students. Spending a lot of time on evolutionary speculations just wastes time. If you remove evolution, there’s nothing in the whole realm of empirical science that you can’t pursue."

As you point out, it demonstrates the dude is a quack. The mutation/evolution/identification of bacteria in medical labs is an absolutely essential function. There are bacteria that have evolved resistance to all known bacteria, and it is one of the big concerns of Epidemiologists. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/librar...04_03.html

Insufferable know-it-all.
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche

RE: A response to Answers In Genesis: Why would an Evolutionist Become a Doctor

(02-03-2014 06:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(02-03-2014 06:16 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote: "Our own Dr. David Menton, who taught anatomy at the Washington University School of Medicine, said this about evolution and medicine:
If evolution were thrown out of consideration, it would have no negative impact (in medicine)—it plays no necessary role in either the teaching or practice of medicine.
This is not to imply it’s not believed by most or that it doesn’t come up. It does come up from time to time, but from the lectures I’ve attended, when it does come up, it’s mentioned in passing as almost a confession of faith. It doesn’t contribute materially to the topic.
The professors can’t spend too much time on evolution, as they have too much real medical knowledge to get across to the students. Spending a lot of time on evolutionary speculations just wastes time. If you remove evolution, there’s nothing in the whole realm of empirical science that you can’t pursue."

As you point out, it demonstrates the dude is a quack. The mutation/evolution/identification of bacteria in medical labs is an absolutely essential function. There are bacteria that have evolved resistance to all known bacteria, and it is one of the big concerns of Epidemiologists. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/librar...04_03.html

It shows that they use evolution when necessary but will deny it when it disprove their dogma

RE: A response to Answers In Genesis: Why would an Evolutionist Become a Doctor

Considering how illness and injury are soooo often attributed to divine judgment, why would a Christian want to risk interfering in God's judgement? Or... or.. what about "tests of faith?" Illnesses within faithful members of the church? If there is a reward for faithfully enduring and a reward for praying and just trusting in God, wouldn't interference in this also jeopardize the reward as the faith would then be put into doctors and science?

Yes, yes, I know... "I have faith in God, and He's graciously provided the doctors and science! What a blessing!" I know I'm not sounding very Christian right now, but I'm having serious doubts about Christianity (that was for the theists reading. I'm a severely hurt Christian who is pretty much agnostic now).

RE: A response to Answers In Genesis: Why would an Evolutionist Become a Doctor

(09-03-2014 06:01 PM)Charis Wrote: Considering how illness and injury are soooo often attributed to divine judgment, why would a Christian want to risk interfering in God's judgement? Or... or.. what about "tests of faith?" Illnesses within faithful members of the church? If there is a reward for faithfully enduring and a reward for praying and just trusting in God, wouldn't interference in this also jeopardize the reward as the faith would then be put into doctors and science?

Yes, yes, I know... "I have faith in God, and He's graciously provided the doctors and science! What a blessing!" I know I'm not sounding very Christian right now, but I'm having serious doubts about Christianity (that was for the theists reading. I'm a severely hurt Christian who is pretty much agnostic now).

Well have doubts is good. But why do you doubt it? Is there a verse in particular that throws you off? Im really just trying to make you question weather it makes you a christian or more towards a secular mind. The problem with there being doctors in a christian perspective is because the fact that christians are trying to fight off god. In fact it makes faith worst. It shows that praying to god is useless seeing as how we can go to the hospital and get cured without a problem.